From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.80772.1673594313330041753 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 23:18:33 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=B7KZpK/K; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 170.10.133.124, mailfrom: kraxel@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1673594312; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JjCSIi9KSIj33Re+BrWVGNCeYrCf6voy54pNqcYV9lY=; b=B7KZpK/Kag3rU3lio86fmbPyG4MraQu8DvrCIv1/2ymSIgkBI2KdyrcTtslkHfjuy32ctM 8xdnfnZIfwEd6aBVqwJRL0y3ym9V9j48YLg358esMo4H+i/Xj4M17F9BeMw1SjQ29FK7xs i7w7/L2fSIAQOPwNDCAJxnZUz5dhU70= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-634-IUjSPOPRPmCOlVFWAEHC8g-1; Fri, 13 Jan 2023 02:18:28 -0500 X-MC-Unique: IUjSPOPRPmCOlVFWAEHC8g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C1433806107; Fri, 13 Jan 2023 07:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sirius.home.kraxel.org (unknown [10.39.192.238]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F1AC1415126; Fri, 13 Jan 2023 07:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by sirius.home.kraxel.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BC18D180060E; Fri, 13 Jan 2023 08:18:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2023 08:18:26 +0100 From: "Gerd Hoffmann" To: devel@edk2.groups.io, jiewen.yao@intel.com Cc: Dionna Glaze , Ard Biescheuvel , "Xu, Min M" , James Bottomley , Tom Lendacky , "Aktas, Erdem" , Andrew Fish , "Kinney, Michael D" Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v9 0/4] Add safe unaccepted memory behavior Message-ID: <20230113071826.l4636jwkn36nuo2a@sirius.home.kraxel.org> References: <20230113001419.2519031-1-dionnaglaze@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.7 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 03:46:34AM +0000, Yao, Jiewen wrote: > Hi Dionna > I think I understand your intention. > I believe we need OS side and UEFI standard sign-off for this *BZ3987_MEMORY_ACCEPTANCE_PROTOCOL*, because OS is the consumer, right? > If so, I suggest you maintain the work in a edk2-stage area for https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-staging. > > EDKII main branch is for production. MdePkg can only include the API definition approved by UEFI standard. > EDK2 staging is a place for POC / collaboration. That is why I think edk2 staging is more proper place for this feature. > > Without OS and UEFI standard sign-off, I don't think this BZ3987_MEMORY_ACCEPTANCE_PROTOCOL can be integrated to EDKII main branch, especially in MdePkg/Include/Protocol/MemoryAcceptance.h. Ok. Reading through the bug (comment 53) it looks like Intel's take on this is that it will simply not be needed long-term. How about adding it to OvmfPkg/Include/Protocol/MemoryAcceptance.h then? It surely will be very useful short-term. If it turns out that lazy accept support indeed becomes a standard feature we might drop this in 3-5 years. Or promote it to MdePkg should that not be the case. take care, Gerd